UK to lower voting age to 16

[Immanuel Can]

Did you actually read the proposed SAVE act requirements?

I already pointed out: I have no problem at all with any government requiring a new ID, or using the existing ones. I don't even object to the practice some states have of using a signature in substitute. Nor should you, I would say.

You've already admitted that nobody is too stupid or inept to get one. So exactly what can your objection be?

Are you thinking that it will disenfranchise the dead? Or are you worried that it will cut out the illegal aliens Biden admitted to bolster the vote? For exactly whom are you crying here, Argentina?

Do you actually read my posts?

Do you understand what I am saying in my posts?

Illegal aliens don't vote.

Dead people don't vote.

That's all bullshit Trump propaganda.

Good. So there's nobody you're worried about. So why did you bring up the "voter suppression" nonsense?

[phyllo]

Well, apparently you are worried about aliens and dead people voting.

That's your problem, not mine.

[MikeNovack]

....., I've never met even one who could not acquire a basic ID...the same ID required for them to drive a car, or travel outside the country, or, in some cases, go fishing or hunting. And whenever you actually ask them such a thing, they look at you like, "Are you mentally impaired?"

They're not stupid or inept.

If they have these IDs now, which they can use to vote, then why do they need to expend more effort, time and money to get another unnecessary ID?

i
The problem is this is a slippery slope. I'm not talking about "ineptness" but "affordability" because if not specified COULD be used as a "poll tax"

Shall we use my state f MA as an example? So called "simple ID" "treal ID" and now you can get on a DOMESTIC arplane. that will let you drive a car. buy booze, etc. costs X. For an additional fee you can get that upgrade to "real ID" and now you can get on a DOMESTIC flight airplane.You need a PASSPORT to travel outside the country (well to get back in)> The passport is very much not free.

There is nothing terrible abut requiring good ID EXCEPT could later be used to impose a de facto poll tax by making this ID expensive to get.

[phyllo]

You need to edit that post.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, apparently you are worried about aliens and dead people voting.

Not me. I was trying to figure out who it was that you were advocating for, since no living persons or citizens would ever have a problem.

That's your problem, not mine.

On the contrary: I have no problem at all with voter ID, and nobody else sensible has a problem with it, either. The whole "voter suppression" issue is simply too ridiculous to countenance.

[phyllo]

Stop gaslighting me.

[Immanuel Can]

Stop gaslighting me.

Nobody's gaslighting you. If you got confused and began to think I was the one defending somebody on the basis of the "voter suppression" nonsense, then perhaps you just lost your way. There's nobody to defend: not blacks, not Hispanics, not dead people, not non-citizens...so who is being "suppressed"? I can't think of one candidate for that problem. Can you?

But in any case, I think we can "de-gaslight" you. For having dispensed with the nonsense, we can return to the main point: it is not the case that not-enfranchising children would start some slippery slope to excluding anybody, and "voter ID laws" wouldn't be an example of suppression.

So now, so far as I can see, you're out of luck that there's any danger to anybody...unless you've got some new line of argument on that.

[phyllo]

Stop gaslighting me.

Nobody's gaslighting you. If you got confused and began to think I was the one defending somebody on the basis of the "voter suppression" nonsense, then perhaps you just lost your way. There's nobody to defend: not blacks, not Hispanics, not dead people, not non-citizens...so who is being "suppressed"? I can't think of one candidate for that problem. Can you?

But in any case, I think we can "de-gaslight" you. For having dispensed with the nonsense, we can return to the main point: it is not the case that not-enfranchising children would start some slippery slope to excluding anybody, and "voter ID laws" wouldn't be an example of suppression.

So now, so far as I can see, you're out of luck that there's any danger to anybody...unless you've got some new line of argument on that.

Thanks for confirming that I am the problem when I suggest that there is a problem with voter suppression.

Thanks for confirming that I am imagining things.

[Immanuel Can]

Stop gaslighting me.

Nobody's gaslighting you. If you got confused and began to think I was the one defending somebody on the basis of the "voter suppression" nonsense, then perhaps you just lost your way. There's nobody to defend: not blacks, not Hispanics, not dead people, not non-citizens...so who is being "suppressed"? I can't think of one candidate for that problem. Can you?

But in any case, I think we can "de-gaslight" you. For having dispensed with the nonsense, we can return to the main point: it is not the case that not-enfranchising children would start some slippery slope to excluding anybody, and "voter ID laws" wouldn't be an example of suppression.

So now, so far as I can see, you're out of luck that there's any danger to anybody...unless you've got some new line of argument on that.

Thanks for confirming that I am the problem when I suggest that there is a problem with voter suppression.

Your paraphrase is once again incorrect. Look back, and you'll find that at no point have I done this.

You're not the problem: the problem is the people who float these kinds of think conspiracy-theories. But they know what they're doing. They just think people are not smart enough to catch them. Now you and I have, and that shows us smarter than then hoped.

Thanks for confirming that I am imagining things.

You were, perhaps, believing people who should not be believed. But you were not imagining them lying. They were.

[MikeNovack]

On the contrary: I have no problem at all with voter ID, and nobody else sensible has a problem with it, either. The whole "voter suppression" issue is simply too ridiculous to countenance.

I think I am being sensible/rational in spite of having problems with "voter ID" (as this discussion in the political arena).

Since the STATED reason (need for) is contrary to fact (as I see the facts) then I have to suppose the proponents have other motives, and wonder about those.

In other words, in a statistical sense, dead people and others ineligible to vote are NOT in fact casting votes. A few hundred out of a hundred million votes is essentially non-existent.

Now, perhaps the motivations of those wanting tough ID requirements actually believe there is a problem. In other words, they are honest of intent, just confused about reality. They actually believe that stiff ID requirements will prevent those now voting illegally from voting, and the "cost imposed" is NOT just to impose a cost.

To see where I am coming from, suppose we create an "approved voting ID" and only those who have such ID are allowed to vote. Those not legally entitled to vote would be unable to vote, so THAT problem solved. But now let's consider the details, because the devil is in the details. Is this an essentially free ID? (bring in the paperwork, be issued the ID, no excessive charges). Or is this an expensive matter, a high "processing fee" so only those who really want very badly to vote AND have that amount in discretionary funds could/would get the ID.

In other words, I distrust the motivation. You think that is irrational? But I think anybody who believes voter fraud exists to a meaningful extent is irrational.

[Immanuel Can]

...the "cost imposed"...

Umm...exactly what is the "cost" of getting an ID that absolutely everybody can easily get -- and most people already have? For example, what American citizen doesn't have a driver's license, or a SIN card, or a birth certificate? And what is the "cost" of signing for your vote?

I just can't see what you're talking about, at all. But you must have something in mind, because you called it a "cost." What is this "cost"?

[phyllo]

...the "cost imposed"...

Umm...exactly what is the "cost" of getting an ID that absolutely everybody can easily get -- and most people already have? For example, what American citizen doesn't have a driver's license, or a SIN card, or a birth certificate? And what is the "cost" of signing for your vote?

I just can't see what you're talking about, at all. But you must have something in mind, because you called it a "cost." What is this "cost"?

IC doesn't even know what changes the Save act requires.

Waste of time.

[phyllo]

Nobody's gaslighting you. If you got confused and began to think I was the one defending somebody on the basis of the "voter suppression" nonsense, then perhaps you just lost your way. There's nobody to defend: not blacks, not Hispanics, not dead people, not non-citizens...so who is being "suppressed"? I can't think of one candidate for that problem. Can you?

But in any case, I think we can "de-gaslight" you. For having dispensed with the nonsense, we can return to the main point: it is not the case that not-enfranchising children would start some slippery slope to excluding anybody, and "voter ID laws" wouldn't be an example of suppression.

So now, so far as I can see, you're out of luck that there's any danger to anybody...unless you've got some new line of argument on that.

Thanks for confirming that I am the problem when I suggest that there is a problem with voter suppression.

Your paraphrase is once again incorrect. Look back, and you'll find that at no point have I done this.

You're not the problem: the problem is the people who float these kinds of think conspiracy-theories. But they know what they're doing. They just think people are not smart enough to catch them. Now you and I have, and that shows us smarter than then hoped.

Thanks for confirming that I am imagining things.

You were, perhaps, believing people who should not be believed. But you were not imagining them lying. They were.

That wasn't a paraphrase of what you wrote.

It's what I think you are doing.

[MikeNovack]

...the "cost imposed"...

Umm...exactly what is the "cost" of getting an ID that absolutely everybody can easily get -- and most people already have? For example, what American citizen doesn't have a driver's license, or a SIN card, or a birth certificate? And what is the "cost" of signing for your vote?

I just can't see what you're talking about, at all. But you must have something in mind, because you called it a "cost." What is this "cost"?

IC, do REALLY live in some state where a driver's license is issued to you for no fee? Or where you can get the state where you were born to send you an official copy of your birth certificate for no fee? I used my own state of MA as an example because the state ID/driver's license (you can get ID without including being allowed to drive) costs one fee BUT for a higher fee you can get it upgraded to "real ID" (valid to get onto an airplane). NEITHER is free. There is a renewal fee every couple years.

A US passport is NOT free (the fees are over $100 and of course the necessary documents you need to submit with it all had associated fees to obtain them. In general, getting the necessary documentation is more expensive for women. I can explain why if you insist.

If you persist in not understanding, I will consider that willful.

[Immanuel Can]

...the "cost imposed"...

Umm...exactly what is the "cost" of getting an ID that absolutely everybody can easily get -- and most people already have? For example, what American citizen doesn't have a driver's license, or a SIN card, or a birth certificate? And what is the "cost" of signing for your vote?

I just can't see what you're talking about, at all. But you must have something in mind, because you called it a "cost." What is this "cost"?

IC doesn't even know what changes the Save act requires.

Well, you said it mandates voter ID.

And I pointed out that that would be fine. And you agreed, since, you said, there isn't anybody who can't do it.

So what's the problem?

This isn't rocket science: if voter ID should hurt somebody, you should be able to say who that person is.